christians - idols

[James the Persian]

James, I heartily implore you to stop slandering me.
We'll come back to this discussion a bit later, when I have time. Until that I ask you not to mention me with any wild labels, let alone libels ("Romaphobic" etc).

Best regards,
Mykola

Where is the libel? Please at least try to understand what I write. I said that you remind me, in your attitude to Orthodoxy, of the Protestants I know in the west who are 'Romaphobic' i.e. hate all things Roman Catholic simply because they come out of Rome rather than having any understanding of the doctrines/practices. You do, in your attitude to us, remind me of exactly such people.

You clearly despise Orthodoxy whilst failing to understand our faith. You make sweeping over-generalisations from the misguided actions of a few and hold this up as being normative, when it is not. You even go so far as to dismiss what we are telling you we believe because you apparently think you know better. I've seen all of these things done before by Protestants with respect to Roman Catholics.

If anyone has libeled (and it's not slander - this is a written medium) anyone it is you who have libeled the Orthodox by claiming that we worship saints and icons when nothing could be further from the truth and yet you stubbornly cling to such claims out of what appears to a wilfull ignorance.

James

 

[Mykola]

Where is the libel?

I'd stop here. I don't want to raise a federal case about it, so I'll skip that one.

Please at least try to understand what I write.

I honestly will.

I said that you remind me, in your attitude to Orthodoxy,

Okay, that's my fault. I'd better try to emphasize my attitude to the Bible than to Orthodoxy.
If you want, we can discuss some narrow topic, trying to escape generalizations, oversimplifications etc.

of the Protestants I know in the west who are 'Romaphobic' i.e. hate all things Roman Catholic simply because they come out of Rome

Don't know any sane people who hate things just because they come out of Rome...
I hate very few things, and not by 'territorial' reasons, so put me out from the list of those Protestant-like Romanophobs

rather than having any understanding of the doctrines/practices.

Just a side remark - to understand something does not necessarily mean to agree on that. Do you agree?

You do, in your attitude to us, remind me of exactly such people.

I'll survive that ...and will learn from that, too...

You clearly despise Orthodoxy whilst failing to understand our faith.

No, I don't.
I see unscriptural elements in Orthodoxy.

Orthodox people, all thing being equal, I love just as I love all people.

You make sweeping over-generalisations from the misguided actions of a few

Few? Many!... But if they are misguided, that'd be another story. We'll see.

...and hold this up as being normative, when it is not.

Okay, I would narrow my questions, and we'll see what is normative and what's not, what is scriptural and God-accepted and what is not.

You even go so far as to dismiss what we are telling you we believe because you apparently think you know better.

The views of different Orthodox obviously differ, so I had to try to reconcile incompatible views. Again, we'd benefit from narrowing issues considered...

If anyone has libeled (and it's not slander - this is a written medium) anyone it is you who have libeled the Orthodox by claiming that we worship saints and icons when nothing could be further from the truth

We'll see. Further from truth, you say? We'll see that, friend.

and yet you stubbornly cling to such claims out of what appears to a wilfull ignorance.

Ignorance of what? The Bible or traditions? Just plain answer, James. This or that?

-

I'm now a bit too busy at work now, so I apologize if I wouldn't answer you reply immediately.

 

[James the Persian]

Don't know any sane people who hate things just because they come out of Rome...
I hate very few things, and not by 'territorial' reasons, so put me out from the list of those Protestant-like Romanophobs

Maybe my meaning would have been clearer if I'd written the Vatican rather than Rome? This is about a church not a city.

Just a side remark - to understand something does not necessarily mean to agree on that. Do you agree?

Absolutely, had you shown any understanding of Orthodoxy then I could respect your disagreement but as you haven't the point is moot.

No, I don't.
I see unscriptural elements in Orthodoxy.

Examples would be nice, but please try to remember that the Church pre-dates the NT. That is Tradition, not traditions, came before Scripture which is, itself, a part of that Tradition and speaks of us holding to Tradition whether written or oral.

Orthodox people, all thing being equal, I love just as I love all people.

I said you clearly despised Orthodoxy, not Orthodox Christians.

Few? Many!... But if they are misguided, that'd be another story. We'll see.

Really many, or many in your opinion? You've already demonstrated your inability to discern the beliefs behind Orthodox praxis and your unwillingness to accept our explanations of what we believe as true, so forgive me if I feel compelled to take your word on the number of Orthodox who worship the saints with a bucket of salt.

Okay, I would narrow my questions, and we'll see what is normative and what's not, what is scriptural and God-accepted and what is not.

That would be a good idea, though if you insist on elevating Scripture up to sole authority we'll soon be butting heads again. Never mind, I'm pretty sure I can demolish sola scriptura without reference to extra-scriptural sources.

The views of different Orthodox obviously differ, so I had to try to reconcile incompatible views. Again, we'd benefit from narrowing issues considered...

Actually, I'd say Orthodox views are remarkably homogeneous, certainly more so than Protestant views are (as we aren't divided into hundreds of different grouyps with different doctrines). There are areas of disagreement, but not in relation to this issue. Anyone who was to argue against the line i have given would be preaching heresy, not Orthodoxy.

We'll see. Further from truth, you say? We'll see that, friend.

Please stop with the friend thing. I find it incredibly annoying and it does not reflect well on your sincerity. But no, nothing could be further from the truth than your accusation that we worship saints. A misguided few may but then they are only Orthodox in name not in belief.

Ignorance of what? The Bible or traditions? Just plain answer, James. This or that?

If by 'traditions' you mean Holy Tradition then I'm afraid that your question is unanswerable. Scripture is part of Holy Tradition but, as St. Paul clearly states, it is not the be all and end all of the faith, and nobody prior to the 16th century ever argued that it was. If you mean traditions, however, in the way I would use the word, hen I'm afraid to say that you are the one following a tradition, that of sola scriptura, an invention of Martin Luther.

I'm now a bit too busy at work now, so I apologize if I wouldn't answer you reply immediately.

No problem. Answer when you can.

James

 

[Mykola]

Maybe my meaning would have been clearer if I'd written the Vatican rather than Rome? This is about a church not a city.

I've understood you. No, I don't despise anything just because it is connected with this ot that religion, comes from it etc. Am I clear now?

Absolutely, had you shown any understanding of Orthodoxy then I could respect your disagreement but as you haven't the point is moot.

"And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh." (Ecc. 12:12)

Still, I may learn from you...

Examples would be nice, but please try to remember that the Church pre-dates the NT. That is Tradition, not traditions, came before Scripture which is, itself, a part of that Tradition and speaks of us holding to Tradition whether written or oral.

Can you support this idea scripturally?

I said you clearly despised Orthodoxy, not Orthodox Christians.

Let's try to dispose of emotions. I don't despise doctrine by itself.

Really many, or many in your opinion? You've already demonstrated your inability to discern the beliefs behind Orthodox praxis and your unwillingness to accept our explanations of what we believe as true, so forgive me if I feel compelled to take your word on the number of Orthodox who worship the saints with a bucket of salt.

I don't aspire to mind-read, James, and I just saw people kneel before the icons, praying to them. Perhaps it was just concourse of circumstances...
I've seen icons with scripts on them asking Holy Mary to help them and to guide them.
Explain this, please...

That would be a good idea, though if you insist on elevating Scripture up to sole authority we'll soon be butting heads again. Never mind, I'm pretty sure I can demolish sola scriptura without reference to extra-scriptural sources.

Please do try...

Actually, I'd say Orthodox views are remarkably homogeneous, certainly more so than Protestant views are (as we aren't divided into hundreds of different grouyps with different doctrines).

I'm not a Protestant. Dyslexia? Arrogance? James, what's wrong with you?

There are areas of disagreement, but not in relation to this issue. Anyone who was to argue against the line i have given would be preaching heresy, not Orthodoxy.

Okay, I can see that.

Please stop with the friend thing.

As you wish.

I find it incredibly annoying and it does not reflect well on your sincerity.

First part - acceptable. If you find anything annoying, I can think of stopping it.
Second part - about my sincerity - do you think you're my enemy just because we don't agree on some points?
But, still, I stop that. Again, my English is not so good and I may not see some things as annoying while they actually are to a reader more good in English.

But no, nothing could be further from the truth than your accusation that we worship saints. A misguided few may but then they are only Orthodox in name not in belief.

Okay. I will investigate it more profoundly.

If by 'traditions' you mean Holy Tradition then I'm afraid that your question is unanswerable.

What is Holy Tradition? How would you explain it scripturally?

Scripture is part of Holy Tradition but, as St. Paul clearly states, it is not the be all and end all of the faith,

Paul states where, please?

and nobody prior to the 16th century ever argued that it was. If you mean traditions, however, in the way I would use the word, hen I'm afraid to say that you are the one following a tradition, that of sola scriptura, an invention of Martin Luther.

I see your point...

Your move

 

[James the Persian]

I've understood you. No, I don't despise anything just because it is connected with this ot that religion, comes from it etc. Am I clear now?

I'm glad, but I know many Protestants, including my mother, who do hold such an opinion and your criticisms of Orthodoxy remind me strongly of theirs of the RCC.

"And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh." (Ecc. 12:12)

Still, I may learn from you...

I fail to see the relevance here. We are not talking of worldly wisdom but your misrepresentation of the Orthodox faith.

Can you support this idea scripturally?

Which idea? That the Church pre-dates the NT? Surely anyone could show that. Unless you believe that Christ wrote the NT (which would be a novel idea indeed) then it is quite obvious that His founding of the Church pre-dates the writing of the texts. Don't you see that?

Let's try to dispose of emotions. I don't despise doctrine by itself.

Well you're doing a good job of convincing me otherwise, but I'll try to take your word for it.

I don't aspire to mind-read, James, and I just saw people kneel before the icons, praying to them. Perhaps it was just concourse of circumstances...
I've seen icons with scripts on them asking Holy Mary to help them and to guide them.
Explain this, please...

No, you saw people kneeling before an icon asking the saints to pray for them (we do not pray to icons). You've seen prayers that are requests that the Theotokos intercede for us but you have read into the texts the idea that she has some power in herself. This is not what we believe. She can help us but the only way she can do this is to pray to God for us. Only He can actually answer our prayers. The same is true of all the saints.

Please do try...

How about:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

and:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. John 21:25

As a couple of examples of the fact that Scripture attests to the fact that scripture alone does not contain all of the faith?

or this:

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

which states clearly that the Church and not Scripture is the pillar and ground of the Truth?

I'm not a Protestant. Dyslexia? Arrogance? James, what's wrong with you?

Look, I could have written 'Protestants, Non-denominationals and other sects with their roots in the Reformation' but I'd rather avoid having to write an essay every time I refer to the groups that broke away from Rome. They all look Protestant to me in any case and I'm afraid that you will be lumped with that label until you tell me how you would prefer me to refer to you and those like you.

Okay, I can see that.

Good

First part - acceptable. If you find anything annoying, I can think of stopping it.
Second part - about my sincerity - do you think you're my enemy just because we don't agree on some points?
But, still, I stop that. Again, my English is not so good and I may not see some things as annoying while they actually are to a reader more good in English.

I don't think you are my enemy because we disagree, but I do think that you have shown yourself to be an enemy of my faith by your baseless attacks. More to the point you have personally insulted me by questioning my sanity so how can your use of the word 'friend' be anything but rank hypocrisy?

What is Holy Tradition? How would you explain it scripturally?

Those oral and written teachings (including Scripture) mentioned by Paul above.

Paul states where, please?

See quotes above

I see your point...

Well that's a very good start. I must commend you as that is the first time I've ever seen a staunch sola scripturalist admit that their tradition is an invention of Martin Luther and not a teaching of the Church from day 1.

 

[Mykola]

I'm glad, but I know many Protestants, including my mother, who do hold such an opinion and your criticisms of Orthodoxy remind me strongly of theirs of the RCC.

Okay, forget it. I mean, let's pass by this. Closer to details.

I fail to see the relevance here. We are not talking of worldly wisdom but your misrepresentation of the Orthodox faith.

I meant to say that I cannot possibly know all the intricate details of every teaching on the Earth, including Orthodoxy.

Which idea? That the Church pre-dates the NT? Surely anyone could show that. Unless you believe that Christ wrote the NT (which would be a novel idea indeed) then it is quite obvious that His founding of the Church pre-dates the writing of the texts. Don't you see that?

Okay, let's put it like that.

OT -> {points to Jesus Christ} -> Jesus Christ -> {dies, is resurrected, sends the Comforter and establishes His Church} -> NT {tells us everything we need about Jesus Christ and His teaching}
The Comforter (Holy Spirit) -> teaches people.
Church -> comprises people who have received Jesus Christ.

All these are inteconnected, and to argue what predates what in this cases proves nothing. Apostles were driven by Holy Spirit in their teachings and writings.
Yet, now, since all Apostles are dead and buried long ago, we can rely on what they have written - the NT (not disregarding OT too, of course).

Well you're doing a good job of convincing me otherwise, but I'll try to take your word for it.

Let's just try to do that. With a prayer, we'll succeed. Emotions are the first on the list of my biggest problems, and that's why I mention them now.
But if we both do our best not to let our emotions to distort our ability to think logically, we'll benefit from it considerably.

No, you saw people kneeling before an icon asking the saints to pray for them (we do not pray to icons). You've seen prayers that are requests that the Theotokos intercede for us but you have read into the texts the idea that she has some power in herself. This is not what we believe. She can help us but the only way she can do this is to pray to God for us. Only He can actually answer our prayers. The same is true of all the saints.

Okay, I'll talk with some Orthodox priest about it.

Still, I don't see how you can ask a person physically dead - how can you communicate with a person physically dead - without praying to the person?
It is not rethorical question.

How about:

Therefore, brethren, stand fast and hold the traditions which you were taught, whether by word or our epistle. 2 Thessalonians 2:15

By word of who? Spirit-driven Apostles or just anybody who feels like to add something he thinks to be valuable to the teaching of Apostles (which is teaching of Christ).

and:

And there are also many other things that Jesus did, which if they were written one by one, I suppose that even the world itself could not contain the books that would be written. Amen. John 21:25

How about that?

The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29)

or this:

but if I am delayed, I write so that you may know how you ought to conduct yourself in the house of God, which is the church of the living God, the pillar and ground of the truth. 1 Timothy 3:15

The only pillar? What's the unfailing standard that Church is to follow? Since we don't have no Apostles alive, this standard should be the Bible.

which states clearly that the Church and not Scripture is the pillar and ground of the Truth?

Come on, James! How about not reading into?
"...states clearly that the Church and not Scripture". Does it? Is it that clear?

Look, I could have written 'Protestants, Non-denominationals and other sects with their roots in the Reformation' but I'd rather avoid having to write an essay every time I refer to the groups that broke away from Rome.

I don't belong to any groups that broke away from Rome, so please do me a favor just calling me... Nick (which is English for Ukrainian Mykola) or Nicolae, if you wish
Unless you want to provoke me, which I don't think is really your goal.

They all look Protestant to me in any case and I'm afraid that you will be lumped with that label until you tell me how you would prefer me to refer to you and those like you.

Ah, or, if not so personally - Christian, followers of Christ. That's all.

I don't think you are my enemy because we disagree, but I do think that you have shown yourself to be an enemy of my faith by your baseless attacks. More to the point you have personally insulted me by questioning my sanity so how can your use of the word 'friend' be anything but rank hypocrisy?

Firstly, I don't regard insane persons as enemies too.
Second, I suggested that just because your assertion was wild. D'you remember, that "adhering to the Bible as only authority has lead Church to splintering". I beg your pardon, but... I still find it wild and insane. It, not you.
I'm sorry for calling you insane. Besides, I'd not be talking to you if I really thought you're out of your mind.

Those oral and written teachings (including Scripture) mentioned by Paul above.

See my reply above.

Well that's a very good start. I must commend you as that is the first time I've ever seen a staunch sola scripturalist admit that their tradition is an invention of Martin Luther and not a teaching of the Church from day 1.

Sorry to disappoint you, but seeing your point does not necessarily mean agreeing on this point... and does not mean this in the case.

Set your counter to zero again

Again, please do not read into my words. If I follow that tactics too, the discussion will inevitably collapse.

Finally, would you mind drop this labeling? Now it is "sola-scripturalist" What's next?
See my remark - naming convention - above, please.

 

[James the Persian]

OT -> {points to Jesus Christ} -> Jesus Christ -> {dies, is resurrected, sends the Comforter and establishes His Church} -> NT {tells us everything we need about Jesus Christ and His teaching}
The Comforter (Holy Spirit) -> teaches people.
Church -> comprises people who have received Jesus Christ.

All these are inteconnected, and to argue what predates what in this cases proves nothing. Apostles were driven by Holy Spirit in their teachings and writings.
Yet, now, since all Apostles are dead and buried long ago, we can rely on what they have written - the NT (not disregarding OT too, of course).

I disagree. If you claim the Church must be based on the Bible then you claim the Bible pre-dates the Church. Please don't forget that the canon of Scripture was not completed for another 3 centuries after the death of the last Apostle. Your argument, then, results in the ludicrous proposition that the Church ceased to exist for about 300 years. Just because something was not written down (and much of it was written down outside the pages of the NT, you just choose to disregard such sources) does not mean it was forgotten. The Scriptures are the most important part of Holy Tradition against which all the rest must be judged but they are not and never were (not even the OT as the Jews also have oral Tradition) the sum total of the faith.

Let's just try to do that. With a prayer, we'll succeed. Emotions are the first on the list of my biggest problems, and that's why I mention them now.
But if we both do our best not to let our emotions to distort our ability to think logically, we'll benefit from it considerably.

On this, at least, we can agree.

Still, I don't see how you can ask a person physically dead - how can you communicate with a person physically dead - without praying to the person?
It is not rethorical question.

Because they are with God and can hear us by His grace. Here's a Scriptural quote for you that illustrates that this idea pre-dates Christianity (it is from the Deuterocanon, but everyone accepted these books as Scripture prior to the Reformation).

TOBIT 12.12-15, Now therefore when you and your sister-in-law Sarah did pray, I did bring the remembrance of your prayer before the holy ONE.....And now God has sent me to heal you and Sarah your daughter in law. I am Raphael one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.

Note that Raphael is an angel, not God, and yet he can hear the prayers of the living and intercede before God. We believe the saints are in a similar position.

By word of who? Spirit-driven Apostles or just anybody who feels like to add something he thinks to be valuable to the teaching of Apostles (which is teaching of Christ).

Quite right, but Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Apostles and not anything new added by others at a later date. That's why you'll find that Orthodox generally view the word innovation as being tantamount to heresy - anything new in the faith must be wrong.

How about that?

The secret [things belong] unto the LORD our God: but those [things which are] revealed [belong] unto us and to our children for ever, that [we] may do all the words of this law. (Deut. 29:29)

But revealed does not necessarily mean written down. There is absolutely nothing secret about Holy Tradition. Orthodoxy is not a Gnostic mystery cult.

The only pillar? What's the unfailing standard that Church is to follow? Since we don't have no Apostles alive, this standard should be the Bible.

The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ alone is Her Head. The Church is founded on the Living Word, the Incarnate Son of God. Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Church sqaid to be founded on the Scriptures themselves, on the contrary these are products of the Church. I'd also note that you sound as if you believe all revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Divine. Do you really think that? We certainly don't, though personal revelations are treated by us as such and not dogmatised.

Come on, James! How about not reading into?
"...states clearly that the Church and not Scripture". Does it? Is it that clear?

It is to me, yes. If you can find me a passage that says similarly of Scripture then you might have a point. Otherwise it seems crystal clear.

I don't belong to any groups that broke away from Rome, so please do me a favor just calling me... Nick (which is English for Ukrainian Mykola) or Nicolae, if you wish
Unless you want to provoke me, which I don't think is really your goal.

I wasn't talking of you personally but you realised that further down. Please explain to me the origins of the Church of Christ that makes it not a breakaway group from Rome. I don't necessarily mean this directly. For instance, Methodism is such a group. The Anglicans broke from Rome and the Methodists from the Anglicans. Both have a common origin in the See of Rome, then. I know little about your church, but given your theology you are certainly, at least intellectually if not actually, the descendants of those who broke from Rome.

Ah, or, if not so personally - Christian, followers of Christ. That's all.

This would be utterly pointless. We are both Christians as are the RCs, the OOs and countless other groups with conflicting doctrines. I need a useful term that will not cause you offence, not a term that will completely fudge all attempts at comparison between my faith and others. I could, of course, just call you heterodox, but you might find that even more offensive.

Firstly, I don't regard insane persons as enemies too.
Second, I suggested that just because your assertion was wild. D'you remember, that "adhering to the Bible as only authority has lead Church to splintering". I beg your pardon, but... I still find it wild and insane. It, not you.
I'm sorry for calling you insane. Besides, I'd not be talking to you if I really thought you're out of your mind.

If you find that idea wild then you aren't very well versed in Christian history. In the history of the Church there were two major (and as yet unhealed) Schisms prior to the Reformation. One was after Chalcedon and from that the Oriental Orthodox broke away, the second was the Great Schism of 1054 when Rome and the other four Patriarchates (us, in other words) parted company. None of these three communions believes in sola scriptura and all of us are far closer to one another than are all the various Protestant, Non-denominational etc. churches to one another. Along comes the Reformation some 500 years after the Great Schism and Luther suggests that all you actually need is the Bible. Sola sciptura is born and the nascent Protestant church promptly splits into several factions which continue to split and split down to this day (and now there are literally thousands) simply because everyone interprets the Bible however they see fit and whenever they think their church is wrong they run off and set up a new one. Of course they all claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding their interpretation, but the Holy Spirit could not possibly be the author of such confusion.

Finally, would you mind drop this labeling? Now it is "sola-scripturalist" What's next?
See my remark - naming convention - above, please.

If the shoe fits wear it. Sola scripturalist is not an insult but a perfectly valid description of your position - the Church must be based on Scripture alone. After all, if that is not your position then your claim of 'unscriptural practices' falls at the first hurdles, doesn't it?

 

[Mykola]

I disagree. If you claim the Church must be based on the Bible then you claim the Bible pre-dates the Church.

The Bible contains OT and NT. OT predates the Church.

Please don't forget that the canon of Scripture was not completed for another 3 centuries after the death of the last Apostle.

I don't forget it, I disagree.
I don't think that what we call the canon has been decided by people.
(The question of the Bible Canon being very extensive, I'll confine myslef with the above for now.)

 

[Mykola]

Your argument, then, results in the ludicrous proposition that the Church ceased to exist for about 300 years.

No, it doesn't.

Just because something was not written down (and much of it was written down outside the pages of the NT, you just choose to disregard such sources) does not mean it was forgotten.

Still it doesn't mean that this is the truth that we can rely on.
Buddha teaching is not written in the NT...
How can you tell what is the truth at all, then?

The Scriptures are the most important part of Holy Tradition against which all the rest must be judged but they are not and never were (not even the OT as the Jews also have oral Tradition) the sum total of the faith.

Deut. 29:29 again, James.
How do you tell reliable source from unreliable one?
I use the Bible to tell that...

Moreover, if a book contains the same teaching that the Bible does, the book is redundant. If a book contains a teaching that contradict the Bible, the book is harmful.

By the way, please name at least one book outside the Bible that your accept as a part of Holy Tradition.

Because they are with God and can hear us by His grace.

Doesn't God hear us without their help?
Doesn't we have a Mediator - Jesus Christ?

Here's a Scriptural quote for you that illustrates that this idea pre-dates Christianity (it is from the Deuterocanon, but everyone accepted these books as Scripture prior to the Reformation).

Let's stop here.
I don't care who and when was accepting this book. Sorry for them...

I can read and I can understand what I read and I can draw conclusions.
Let me quote, though, the words that I find a good annotation:
"This book contains medical oddities such as the title character going blind when sparrow droppings fall in his eyes, and using the internal organs of fish for medicine. It shows no familiarity with the geography and political situation of eastern Mesopotamia, where the story is alleged to have taken place, and "teems with chronological, historical, and geographical improbabilities and downright errors." It is dated c. 190-170 BC."

TOBIT 12.12-15, Now therefore when you and your sister-in-law Sarah did pray, I did bring the remembrance of your prayer before the holy ONE.....And now God has sent me to heal you and Sarah your daughter in law. I am Raphael one of the seven holy angels which present the prayers of the saints and which go in and out before the glory of the Holy One.

Note that Raphael is an angel, not God, and yet he can hear the prayers of the living and intercede before God. We believe the saints are in a similar position.

Let's see... Assuming that this can be taken as argument...
Angels - spiritual beings, who always see God and present the Almighty in his interaction with us, and saints - deceased ones - people, like you and me. In a similar or equal position?

Why then not... say, to pray to angels? Do you pray to angels?

Quite right, but Holy Tradition is the teaching of the Apostles and not anything new added by others at a later date. That's why you'll find that Orthodox generally view the word innovation as being tantamount to heresy - anything new in the faith must be wrong.

Will I be mistaken if I assume that the words of Apostles had been carefully written for us to know them?
Do you communicate with Apostles in any other way than reading what they've written?

But revealed does not necessarily mean written down. There is absolutely nothing secret about Holy Tradition. Orthodoxy is not a Gnostic mystery cult.

Okay, let's put it on the list.
I start:
What is revealed has been...
1. ...written down in the Bible.

Your move...

The Church is the Body of Christ and Christ alone is Her Head. The Church is founded on the Living Word, the Incarnate Son of God.

Amen.

Nowhere in the Scriptures is the Church said to be founded on the Scriptures themselves, on the contrary these are products of the Church.

It is founded on the Rock, that's beyond discussion.

I'd also note that you sound as if you believe all revelation ceased with the death of St. John the Divine. Do you really think that?

Yes, almost so.
Only I'd not be so specific... Let's put it like that - ...with the death of the last Apostle.

We certainly don't, though personal revelations are treated by us as such and not dogmatised.

Dogmatised... Good word.
Can I have an example? I'd like you to be specific, because speaking generally I also treat modern personal revelations as such... disregarding them.
Why so? Because it is written:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

It is to me, yes. If you can find me a passage that says similarly of Scripture then you might have a point. Otherwise it seems crystal clear.

The Bible is God's Word. His Word is the truth. This I find crystal clear.

I wasn't talking of you personally but you realised that further down. Please explain to me the origins of the Church of Christ that makes it not a breakaway group from Rome.

Please explain me your personal origin that makes your not a descendant of Adolf Hitler.
If I'd dare to demand something like that from you, just tell me: "Mykola, the burden of proof is on you. Feel free to prove the point or keep silent".

I don't necessarily mean this directly. For instance, Methodism is such a group.

Maybe... I'm not a Methodist.

The Anglicans broke from Rome and the Methodists from the Anglicans. Both have a common origin in the See of Rome, then.

...nor I'm an Anglican.

I know little about your church,

Stop here and read Acts 2 one more time, than welcome back

but given your theology you are certainly, at least intellectually if not actually, the descendants of those who broke from Rome.

Okay, let's close this topic, because I suddenly remembered someone saying that "a Jew is a person who an antisemite believes to be a Jew".
This terminology discussion may lead us nowhere, so let's leave it out.

This would be utterly pointless.

Yes, regretfully...

We are both Christians as are the RCs, the OOs and countless other groups with conflicting doctrines. I need a useful term that will not cause you offence, not a term that will completely fudge all attempts at comparison between my faith and others. I could, of course, just call you heterodox, but you might find that even more offensive.

Heterodox! That's was on the move!
Romanophob (deny), sola-scripturalist (proudly accept and deny only because for me it is taken for granted)... now heterodox!
What does it mean? What do you mean by this? I'll suspend my judgment until I know for sure the meaning of this word.

After all, you can call me by name and let's leave this topic alone.

If you find that idea wild then you aren't very well versed in Christian history.

Perhaps.
I aspire to be versed in the Scripture, the God's Word.

In the history of the Church there were two major (and as yet unhealed) Schisms prior to the Reformation. One was after Chalcedon and from that the Oriental Orthodox broke away, the second was the Great Schism of 1054 when Rome and the other four Patriarchates (us, in other words) parted company. None of these three communions believes in sola scriptura and all of us are far closer to one another than are all the various Protestant, Non-denominational etc. churches to one another. Along comes the Reformation some 500 years after the Great Schism and Luther suggests that all you actually need is the Bible. Sola sciptura is born and the nascent Protestant church promptly splits into several factions which continue to split and split down to this day (and now there are literally thousands) simply because everyone interprets the Bible however they see fit and whenever they think their church is wrong they run off and set up a new one. Of course they all claim that the Holy Spirit is guiding their interpretation, but the Holy Spirit could not possibly be the author of such confusion.

I'm not a part of this.

Splitting started not because some people believed that the Bible is the full and exhausting revelation of God, but rather because some people "loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:43).

If the shoe fits wear it.

List of the shoes that really fit:
1) Christian
2) Follower of Christ
3) Member of the Body of Christ
4) Member of the Church of Christ
5) Mykola (Myke, Nick, Nicolae (rom.), Klaus (germ.), Claesz (dutch), Nioclas (irl.), Mikolaj (pol.) etc.)

Sola scripturalist is not an insult but a perfectly valid description of your position - the Church must be based on Scripture alone.

I'm not insulted.
You cannot insult me no matter what you're saying or doing.

The point is that the word is not found anywhere in the Bible, and I'd rather not invent new words.
"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Occam)

 

[James the Persian]

Buddha teaching is not written in the NT...
How can you tell what is the truth at all, then?

Because the teaching of Buddha are not just inconsistent with the Christian faith but contradict it. Holy Tradition (including Scripture) is perfectly consistent. Anything that opposes the concensus of Holy Tradition is wrong. It's quite easy really.

How do you tell reliable source from unreliable one?
I use the Bible to tell that...

So do I, and the rest of Holy Tradition as well.

Moreover, if a book contains the same teaching that the Bible does, the book is redundant. If a book contains a teaching that contradict the Bible, the book is harmful.

What if it is neither exactly the same nor contradictory? Is your Church Trinitarian? If so, could you kindly point me to the explicit definition of the Trinity in Scripture (the doctrine not the word). If not, could you do the reverse? The answer to both is no, because it is found in Holy Tradition outside of Scripture, though it is reasonably clear from Scripture, it is never specified.

By the way, please name at least one book outside the Bible that your accept as a part of Holy Tradition.

The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas (those are both contemporary with the NT and were considered for inclusion in the canon). The writings of various Fathers, the list is quite long.

Doesn't God hear us without their help?
Doesn't we have a Mediator - Jesus Christ?

Of course, but the prayers of a righteous man are powerful, as Scripture tells us.

Let's stop here.
I don't care who and when was accepting this book. Sorry for them...

And yet it was considered inspired by pre-Christian Jews and all Christians for some 1500 years after the Crucifixion. Don't you find it at all odd that you, who believe the faith must be based on Scripture alone, come from a tradition that has edited that Scripture (mutilated it would be my word)?

Let's see... Assuming that this can be taken as argument...
Angels - spiritual beings, who always see God and present the Almighty in his interaction with us, and saints - deceased ones - people, like you and me. In a similar or equal position?

Don't you believe that the deceased are with god, as are the angels? If not, of what worth was Christ's promise to the Good Thief?

Why then not... say, to pray to angels? Do you pray to angels?

In the exact same way as we pray 'to' the saints (in other words, no but we ask for their prayers) yes. In fact my wife's patron saint is an angel, the Archangel Gabriel.

Will I be mistaken if I assume that the words of Apostles had been carefully written for us to know them?
Do you communicate with Apostles in any other way than reading what they've written?

Some of their words have been written, certainly. Some clearly have not. The only other way (and you must do the same as most of them wrote little) that I hear of what the Apostles said is to read what they have been reported to have said by others, both in Holy Scripture and the rest of Holy Tradition.

Okay, let's put it on the list.
I start:
What is revealed has been...
1. ...written down in the Bible.

Your move...

No, some, and only some, of what was revealed has been written down in the Bible, as the Bible itself clearly states.

Yes, almost so.
Only I'd not be so specific... Let's put it like that - ...with the death of the last Apostle.

That's just as specific. St. John the Divine was the last Apostle. I just named him. He alone lived to be an old man as all the others were martyred.

Dogmatised... Good word.
Can I have an example? I'd like you to be specific, because speaking generally I also treat modern personal revelations as such... disregarding them.
Why so? Because it is written:
But even if we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel to you than what we have preached to you, let him be accursed. (Galatians 1:8)

An example of what, a private revelation? There are many. Read the lives of some saints and you'll soon see several. We tend only to have revelations that confirm the faith in some way (so no equivalent to the RC's 'I am the Immaculate Conception' thing). The sorts of things I mean might be visits of Angels, seeing the Divine Light (as at Mt. Tabor) etc. They're not dogmatised (or even used as props for existing dogma) because they are seen as personal signs from God to the individual who receives them.

The Bible is God's Word. His Word is the truth. This I find crystal clear.

I disagree. God's Word is the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Bible are the inspired writings of Israel and the Church that tell us of God's revelation to man. The Word is certainly the Truth, but by word I mean Logos and not Scripture.

Please explain me your personal origin that makes your not a descendant of Adolf Hitler.
If I'd dare to demand something like that from you, just tell me: "Mykola, the burden of proof is on you. Feel free to prove the point or keep silent".

Are you so insecure in the origins of your denomination that you must resort to childish facetiousness (and I would note that replacing Rome with Adolf Hitler suggests a certain antipathy to Rome, despite your previous protestations to the contrary)? I asked about the origins of the Church of Christ. When was it founded, who by? All I was after was some history yet your taking it as an attack makes me wonder what you have to hide.

Maybe... I'm not a Methodist.

...nor I'm an Anglican.

That was explanation by way of an example. I can't believe you didn't understand that so can only assume that your reaction was deliberate. It's a shame you can't come up with anything better.

Stop here and read Acts 2 one more time, than welcome back

So now you're claiming that your denomination is the Church fro Acts? In that case it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide the last 2000 years of history of your church. At the very least you should be able to find pre-Reformation theologians who taught doctrines similar to your own. Good luck.

Okay, let's close this topic, because I suddenly remembered someone saying that "a Jew is a person who an antisemite believes to be a Jew".
This terminology discussion may lead us nowhere, so let's leave it out.

Fine, I will continue to think of you as Protestant seeing as you leave me no alternative. Your theology is Protestant and your church is recent, so it seems appropriate. I will, however, refrain from actually using the word to describe you. Good enough?

Heterodox! That's was on the move!
Romanophob (deny), sola-scripturalist (proudly accept and deny only because for me it is taken for granted)... now heterodox!
What does it mean? What do you mean by this? I'll suspend my judgment until I know for sure the meaning of this word.

Heterodox is, basically, not Orthodox. Literally, just as Orthodox means right belief and worship heterodox means other belief and worship. I thought you'd be familiar with it as you come from a predominantly Orthodox country, but evidently not.

After all, you can call me by name and let's leave this topic alone.

None of this was about you but how to categorise your church. You, for some reason I cannot fathom, got upset about my calling it Protestant, but you have yet to offer me any other way to describe it. It is not about names, but acurate descriptions. You seem to want to be difficult to tie down but unfortunately that makes debate rather difficult.

I'm not a part of this.

I beg to differ. Your theology is Protestant, you hold to sola scriptura, your church is recent and western. You are most certainly a part of this and, seeing as I mentioned the three pre-Reformation churches also, all Christians are a part of my potted history. The only question is where your denomination falls within it.

Splitting started not because some people believed that the Bible is the full and exhausting revelation of God, but rather because some people "loved the praise of men more than the praise of God." (John 12:43).

Rubbish. There were plenty of people who founded churches because they thought they were doing God's will. There differences were matters of what they read into the Scriptures not of trying to please other men. You really do seem to poorly understand the history of the Christian faith.

List of the shoes that really fit:
1) Christian
2) Follower of Christ
3) Member of the Body of Christ
4) Member of the Church of Christ
5) Mykola (Myke, Nick, Nicolae (rom.), Klaus (germ.), Claesz (dutch), Nioclas (irl.), Mikolaj (pol.) etc.)

None of which actually help clarify what it is you believe and as such they are all perfectly useless from the point of view of fostering a meaningful debate.

The point is that the word is not found anywhere in the Bible, and I'd rather not invent new words.
"Entities are not to be multiplied without necessity" (Occam)

Nor are plenty of words that you use, Bible for instance. In fact your entire language, and mine, are nowhere to be found in the Bible and yet we can use them quite successfully to describe theological concepts, so your objection is meaningless. Sola Scriptura is merely the Latin for Scripture Alone. You can use the latter if you prefer.

 

[Mykola]

Because the teaching of Buddha are not just inconsistent with the Christian faith but contradict it.

Agree, at last!

Holy Tradition (including Scripture) is perfectly consistent. Anything that opposes the concensus of Holy Tradition is wrong. It's quite easy really.

Aha, Holy Tradition again... Okay, I got the point.

What if it is neither exactly the same nor contradictory? Is your Church Trinitarian? If so, could you kindly point me to the explicit definition of the Trinity in Scripture (the doctrine not the word).

The doctrine, the very notion of the Trinity becomes increasingly clear when you keep investigating the Bible thoroughly, reading it with the reverence and attention to the details.
Besides, are there too many exact definitions of anything in the Bible?

...though it is reasonably clear from Scripture, it is never specified.

Exactly, James!

Now, please give me some scriptural example of building "temples" with all that chromed domes, 6-edge crosses in NT? Any of the titles of church ierarchy they use: archimandrites, archbishops, The Most Saint? (Not sure it is an exact translation... what title the head of Romanian Orthodox Church has?)

The Didache, the Shepherd of Hermas (those are both contemporary with the NT and were considered for inclusion in the canon). The writings of various Fathers, the list is quite long.

Enough.

Of course, but the prayers of a righteous man are powerful, as Scripture tells us.

Amen.

And yet it was considered inspired by pre-Christian Jews and all Christians for some 1500 years after the Crucifixion.

Was it, really?

Don't you find it at all odd that you, who believe the faith must be based on Scripture alone, come from a tradition that has edited that Scripture (mutilated it would be my word)?

Tradition? What tradition, James?

I've given you the reason why I regard this book as non-canonical. It is not in harmony with the rest of the Scriptures. It simply doesn't fit canon.

Don't you believe that the deceased are with god, as are the angels? If not, of what worth was Christ's promise to the Good Thief?

Don't try to beg the question, pray.

Angels. People. Are they in the exactly same positions? Do you think so, do you really?

In the exact same way as we pray 'to' the saints (in other words, no but we ask for their prayers) yes. In fact my wife's patron saint is an angel, the Archangel Gabriel.

Mmmm... By the way, the only Archangel I can read of in the Bible is Michael.

Okay, so to communicate to the angel you'd just say "Please, Gabriel, help me, etc".? Fine.

Then, can you please show me a scriptural example of such a prayer or petition (directed not to God, but to someone else)?

Some of their words have been written, certainly. Some clearly have not.

Favorable position!

The only other way (and you must do the same as most of them wrote little) that I hear of what the Apostles said is to read what they have been reported to have said by others, both in Holy Scripture and the rest of Holy Tradition.

HT again...
By the way, do you think the Holy Tradition is God-inspired?

No, some, and only some, of what was revealed has been written down in the Bible, as the Bible itself clearly states.

States where? (Excuse an old sola-scripturalist... Where written is my favorite question.)

That's just as specific. St. John the Divine was the last Apostle. I just named him. He alone lived to be an old man as all the others were martyred.

Okay, then with the death of John.

An example of what, a private revelation? There are many. Read the lives of some saints and you'll soon see several. We tend only to have revelations that confirm the faith in some way (so no equivalent to the RC's 'I am the Immaculate Conception' thing). The sorts of things I mean might be visits of Angels, seeing the Divine Light (as at Mt. Tabor) etc. They're not dogmatised (or even used as props for existing dogma) because they are seen as personal signs from God to the individual who receives them.

Signs for what, James?
What is purpose of God's signs, miracles etc from your point of view?

I disagree. God's Word is the Incarnate Son of God, Jesus Christ. The Bible are the inspired writings of Israel and the Church that tell us of God's revelation to man. The Word is certainly the Truth, but by word I mean Logos and not Scripture.

Now come on, James!

Mark in 7:13 clearly states that "And ye suffer him no more to do ought for his father or his mother; Making the word of God of none effect through your tradition, which ye have delivered: and many such like things do ye." (emphasis mine)

Is that Jesus too? Logos teos... Jesus was talking about Scripture.

Pauls could mean both Scripture and Jesus in his letter to Romans (10:17):
"So then faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the word of God."

 

[Mykola]

Are you so insecure in the origins of your denomination that you must resort to childish facetiousness

Childish facetiousness? Should I stop also joking? We've taken down "friend thing", the next is "jokes thing"?

Okay, let's take a serious look at the matter.

Denomination...

Church of Christ is not a denomination.

James, you surely own a cell phone. This phone is yours, it is James' phone, phone of James, one belonging to James... shall I go on explaining?

Now to the origins: book of Acts describes this. Jerusalem, day of Pentecost, you know the story.

(and I would note that replacing Rome with Adolf Hitler suggests a certain antipathy to Rome, despite your previous protestations to the contrary)?

You also could and did note that I was joking...
Antipathy to Rome... James, I could find much more antipathies in your words... but I wouldn't.
If you are resolutely decided to treat me as Romanophobe, I can't help it, you'd find reason anyway.

Yet, I resolutely deny any such antipathy and again ask you to stop read your preconceptions into my words.

Somehow, you were so carried away by criticizing me, that obviously missed the main point: the burden of proof is on you, James.

I asked about the origins of the Church of Christ. When was it founded, who by? All I was after was some history yet your taking it as an attack makes me wonder what you have to hide.

Nothing to hide, book of Acts is still accessible. The book of Acts is the history of the Church.

That was explanation by way of an example. I can't believe you didn't understand that so can only assume that your reaction was deliberate. It's a shame you can't come up with anything better.

I came up, but you wouldn't hear me and kept on with this Protestant thing...

So now you're claiming that your denomination is the Church fro Acts?

Negative.

I claim that I belong to the Church of Christ about which foundation you can read in the book of Acts.

In that case it shouldn't be too difficult for you to provide the last 2000 years of history of your church. At the very least you should be able to find pre-Reformation theologians who taught doctrines similar to your own. Good luck.

Thank you!

But preconceptions is not very good, James.

For example, you claim to be existing, but I'm not sure that you can trace your own history in minute details all through your life, can't you?

But I with delight will reply about pre-Reformation theologians.
Brothers Peter, Paul, John, Mark, Matthew, Jude, James, Luke... Mind, I'm not facetious any more, James.

Fine, I will continue to think of you as Protestant seeing as you leave me no alternative.

Do as you wish.

Your theology is Protestant and your church is recent, so it seems appropriate.

...And you're telling lies here. How should I call you, James? Again, I'd not use any labels...

I will, however, refrain from actually using the word to describe you. Good enough?

Yes! Have I had to call your an Orthodox or some other terms? You are a man, and you have a perfect, beautiful name (or nickname) - James, which I am using. That's enough...

Heterodox is, basically, not Orthodox. Literally, just as Orthodox means right belief and worship heterodox means other belief and worship. I thought you'd be familiar with it as you come from a predominantly Orthodox country, but evidently not.

Yes.
Neither in Russian nor in Ukrainian there is no technical term close to "Pravoslavnyi", which stands for "Orthodox", hence the question.

None of this was about you but how to categorise your church.

If categorizing is necessary...
Church of Christ. I'm not going to invent anything new...

You, for some reason I cannot fathom, got upset about my calling it Protestant, but you have yet to offer me any other way to describe it.

No, James, I got amazed by your inability to read.

It is not about names, but acurate descriptions. You seem to want to be difficult to tie down but unfortunately that makes debate rather difficult.

"Protestant" is not accurate description in this case.

I beg to differ. Your theology is Protestant, you hold to sola scriptura, your church is recent and western.

Now it's my turn to beg to differ

1) Theology is just Scriptural.
2) I hold to the Bible.
3) I own not a church. Church of Christ is ancient, and...
4) ...rather universal, than western/eastern/etc

You are most certainly a part of this and, seeing as I mentioned the three pre-Reformation churches also, all Christians are a part of my potted history. The only question is where your denomination falls within it.

Preconceptions again...

Where do you park your Hummer, James? Oh, you don't own a Hummer? I forgot to ask you, sorry...
Joking again, childishly as ever.

Rubbish.

Well, that's not very sound argument...
Mine will be that: not rubbish!

There were plenty of people who founded churches because they thought they were doing God's will.

Agree.

There differences were matters of what they read into the Scriptures not of trying to please other men. You really do seem to poorly understand the history of the Christian faith.

I start to doubt whether I understand anything at all...
(Joking again, James, don't relax yet)

None of which actually help clarify what it is you believe and as such they are all perfectly useless from the point of view of fostering a meaningful debate.

Want a creed? Read the Bible from Genesis to Revelation...

Nor are plenty of words that you use, Bible for instance. In fact your entire language, and mine, are nowhere to be found in the Bible and yet we can use them quite successfully to describe theological concepts, so your objection is meaningless. Sola Scriptura is merely the Latin for Scripture Alone. You can use the latter if you prefer.

I know what is sola scriptura. I say, for me it is taken for granted.
I'd prefer not to use that at all

-

If you find something that I write annoying or hurting you, fell free to tell me. I'm open to criticism.

 

[sojourner]

James,

Here is where Myk is coming from:

The Church of Christ is part of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Named for the principal two founders of the movement), a restoration movement, begun in the early part of the nineteenth century, primarily from Scottish Presbyterian roots. These "Campbellites," as they're sometimes called, are definitely rooted in the Western Church, and the "working" theology is definitely Western in nature.

This movement decried denominationalism as anti-scriptural. Their goal was to do away with denominationalism, and simply be "not the only Christians, but Christians only." In that sense, they really bristle at the thought of being considered a denomination. They don't think of themselves in denominational language or philosophy.

They are highly sola scriptura. Example: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent." One of the hallmarks of the Churches of Christ is that they do not use musical instruments in worship, because the use of instruments in worship is not specifically called for in the Bible.

They are not protestant, in the classic sense of seeking to reform the Church, as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did. Rather, they are restorationists, hoping to restore the universal Church to its ancient beginnings (without all the "trappings" that came about later, in terms of hierarchy, architecture, polity, liturgy, sacraments, symbology, etc.) In that way, they see themselves as directly related to the Church at Pentecost, as recounted in Acts 2.

The churches of the movement have no stated theology, disregard the historic creeds as tests of faith -- "We have no creed but Christ" -- and have no stated doctrine. They practice three "ordinances" (sacraments) as laid out by Christ: 1) baptism (believer's baptism by immersion), 2) the Lord's Supper, 3) observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday). To become a member, one must only claim faith in Jesus Christ as savior.

The Churches of Christ are fairly anti-clergy, preferring to use a preponderance of lay ministers and preachers.

I have no idea whether Myk's church comes from the classic Stone-Campbell tradition, or if they are an "offshoot."

Generally, the Churches of Christ are fundamental in theology, dogmatic in personal belief, and conservative in practice.

Basically, if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't worth taking seriously.

 

[Mykola]

Good morning and thank you!

Though I feel as if I am a bug pinned and scrutinized by entomologist...
...I wonder why I haven't told that to James myself - it would help to avoid some misunderstandings, I believe.

Just a few comments...

The Church of Christ is part of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Named for the principal two founders of the movement), a restoration movement, begun in the early part of the nineteenth century, primarily from Scottish Presbyterian roots. These "Campbellites," as they're sometimes called, are definitely rooted in the Western Church, and the "working" theology is definitely Western in nature.

I like the wording, because I've heard about Campbell and his contribution to the restoring pure Biblical worship.

Yet, I should note that with all respect to Campbells, I dare to assert that the founder of the Church of Christ is Jesus Christ, Who is its Head, and we are His Body.
The Church is the Bride, and she belongs to Christ, being His.

This movement decried denominationalism as anti-scriptural. Their goal was to do away with denominationalism, and simply be "not the only Christians, but Christians only."

Truly so.

In that sense, they really bristle at the thought of being considered a denomination. They don't think of themselves in denominational language or philosophy.

Correct.

They are highly sola scriptura.

Small technical comment.
Excuse me for being pedantic, but one cannot be "highly sola scriptura" or "not very sola scriptura"... There are no degrees of comparison in this, on my opinion, as well as in pregnancy - obe just cannot be "a bit pregnant" or "partly pregnant" ))

Example: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

Yes.
Deuteronomy 29:29.

One of the hallmarks of the Churches of Christ is that they do not use musical instruments in worship, because the use of instruments in worship is not specifically called for in the Bible.

Yes. We people has not been given neither command nor example to do that.

They are not protestant, in the classic sense of seeking to reform the Church, as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did.

Correct.

Rather, they are restorationists, hoping to restore the universal Church to its ancient beginnings (without all the "trappings" that came about later, in terms of hierarchy, architecture, polity, liturgy, sacraments, symbology, etc.)

[side remark] Restorationist! If sounds better that Romanophobe ))

But I don't seem to be restoring anything, I just try not to spoil by adding or subtracting, if you see my point. Well, then...

In that way, they see themselves as directly related to the Church at Pentecost, as recounted in Acts 2.

We are and see ourselves as the Church of Christ that has been established on the day of Jewish feast of Pentecost. James and me - we love precision and accuracy, Sojourner

The churches of the movement have no stated theology, disregard the historic creeds as tests of faith -- "We have no creed but Christ" -- and have no stated doctrine.

Hmmm.
I believe we do have a doctrine set forth in the Bible, but correct - we don't have any creeds.

They practice three "ordinances" (sacraments) as laid out by Christ:

I don't seem to remember anyone of us calling it sacraments.
We are commanded by God to do that, so we do that.

1) baptism (believer's baptism by immersion),

Should I comment that baptism is needed once only?

Then, worshipping.
We gather in the first day of the week, Lord's day, that is, Sunday (NB: In Russian it is "Voskresenye" which means "Resurrection").

2) the Lord's Supper,

It is one of the elements of worshipping God.
We pray, sing psalms and hymns, take Lord's Supper, contribute (gather money for the needs of the Church), we read the Bible together and we listen to the Bible sermons.

3) observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday).

Correct.

To become a member, one must only claim faith in Jesus Christ as savior.

Again, the Bible gives us no other examples. If you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you're sure that you're sincere in this confession - you are then co-buried and co-resurrected with Christ in waters of baptism, and you die for the sin and start living for Christ from now on. Everything just according to the Bible.

The Churches of Christ are fairly anti-clergy, preferring to use a preponderance of lay ministers and preachers.

According to the Bible, again.
We are "made kingdom of priests", the Bible clearly states that.

I have no idea whether Myk's church comes from the classic Stone-Campbell tradition, or if they are an "offshoot."

Nor do I Nor I own any churches, if you excuse my love to accurate wording.

Generally, the Churches of Christ are fundamental in theology, dogmatic in personal belief, and conservative in practice.

I believe there's the Church of Christ, I mean Jesus has bought and established just one Church. Yet there are many congregations, normally called Churches of Christ too.

Basically, if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't worth taking seriously.

Amen.

NB: ...And if someone feels like to come up and say "well, microvawe ovens are not found in the Bible, so are we not to take them seriously?" - feel free, it's okay with my sense of humour .

 

[Mykola]

Good morning and thank you!

Though I feel as if I am a bug pinned and scrutinized by entomologist...
...I wonder why I haven't told that to James myself - it would help to avoid some misunderstandings, I believe.

Just a few comments...

The Church of Christ is part of the Stone-Campbell Movement (Named for the principal two founders of the movement), a restoration movement, begun in the early part of the nineteenth century, primarily from Scottish Presbyterian roots. These "Campbellites," as they're sometimes called, are definitely rooted in the Western Church, and the "working" theology is definitely Western in nature.

I like the wording, because I've heard about Campbell and his contribution to the restoring pure Biblical worship.

Yet, I should note that with all respect to Campbells, I dare to assert that the founder of the Church of Christ is Jesus Christ, Who is its Head, and we are His Body.
The Church is the Bride, and she belongs to Christ, being His.

This movement decried denominationalism as anti-scriptural. Their goal was to do away with denominationalism, and simply be "not the only Christians, but Christians only."

Truly so.

In that sense, they really bristle at the thought of being considered a denomination. They don't think of themselves in denominational language or philosophy.

Correct.

They are highly sola scriptura.

Small technical comment.
Excuse me for being pedantic, but one cannot be "highly sola scriptura" or "not very sola scriptura"... There are no degrees of comparison in this, on my opinion, as well as in pregnancy - one just cannot be "a bit pregnant" or "partly pregnant" ))

Example: "Where the Bible speaks, we speak. Where the Bible is silent, we are silent."

Yes.
Deuteronomy 29:29.

One of the hallmarks of the Churches of Christ is that they do not use musical instruments in worship, because the use of instruments in worship is not specifically called for in the Bible.

Yes. We people has not been given neither command nor example to do that.

They are not protestant, in the classic sense of seeking to reform the Church, as Luther, Calvin and Zwingli did.

Correct.

Rather, they are restorationists, hoping to restore the universal Church to its ancient beginnings (without all the "trappings" that came about later, in terms of hierarchy, architecture, polity, liturgy, sacraments, symbology, etc.)

[side remark] Restorationist! If sounds better that Romanophobe ))

But I don't seem to be restoring anything, I just try not to spoil by adding or subtracting, if you see my point. Well, then...

In that way, they see themselves as directly related to the Church at Pentecost, as recounted in Acts 2.

We are and see ourselves as the Church of Christ that has been established on the day of Jewish feast of Pentecost. James and me - we love precision and accuracy, Sojourner

The churches of the movement have no stated theology, disregard the historic creeds as tests of faith -- "We have no creed but Christ" -- and have no stated doctrine.

Hmmm.
I believe we do have a doctrine set forth in the Bible, but correct - we don't have any creeds.

They practice three "ordinances" (sacraments) as laid out by Christ:

I don't seem to remember anyone of us calling it sacraments.
We are commanded by God to do that, so we do that.

1) baptism (believer's baptism by immersion),

Should I comment that baptism is needed once only?

Then, worshipping.
We gather in the first day of the week, Lord's day, that is, Sunday (NB: In Russian it is "Voskresenye" which means "Resurrection").

2) the Lord's Supper,

It is one of the elements of worshipping God.
We pray, sing psalms and hymns, take Lord's Supper, contribute (gather money for the needs of the Church), we read the Bible together and we listen to the Bible sermons.

3) observance of the Lord's Day (Sunday).

Correct.

To become a member, one must only claim faith in Jesus Christ as savior.

Again, the Bible gives us no other examples. If you confess Jesus Christ as your Lord and Savior and you're sure that you're sincere in this confession - you are then co-buried and co-resurrected with Christ in waters of baptism, and you die for the sin and start living for Christ from now on. Everything just according to the Bible.

The Churches of Christ are fairly anti-clergy, preferring to use a preponderance of lay ministers and preachers.

According to the Bible, again.
We are "made kingdom of priests", the Bible clearly states that.

I have no idea whether Myk's church comes from the classic Stone-Campbell tradition, or if they are an "offshoot."

Nor do I Nor I own any churches, if you excuse my love to accurate wording.

Generally, the Churches of Christ are fundamental in theology, dogmatic in personal belief, and conservative in practice.

I believe there's the Church of Christ, I mean Jesus has bought and established just one Church. Yet there are many congregations, normally called Churches of Christ too.

Basically, if it ain't in the Bible, it ain't worth taking seriously.

Amen.

NB: ...And if someone feels like to come up and say "well, microvawe ovens are not found in the Bible, so are we not to take them seriously?" - feel free, it's okay with my sense of humour .

 

[James the Persian]

Thanks Sojourer for filling me in. They are, then, a 19th Century attempt to restore the Church and hence are both western and recent as I wrote (not that it was difficult to ascertain from the theology). Their beliefs are extremely close to the Protestant beliefs I was brought up with, with only two exceptions. On the matter of not using musical instruments in worship and baptism by immersion, they are closer to us than to most Protestants I know of.

Personally, I would note the irony of someone who elevates the Bible to such a level that they can confuse the word of God with the Word of God accusing Orthodox Christians of idolatry (from my perspective, the attitude of this Campbelite movement you described makes an idol of the Scriptures whilst, curiously, not accepting the whole Scripture as followed by the early Church).

Mykola,

Most of what you have been saying has, from my point of view, been duplicitous. In addition, that which has not been such you are clinging to so stubbornly as to make our discussion absolutely useless. You will not even budge when your 'facts' are called into question. The one thing I will address is your attitude to Tobit.

The whole Septuagint was translated by the 1st century BC, by Jews, and used as the predominant form of the Scriptures in the diaspora. It included Tobit and the rest of the Deuterocanon. The Septuagint is the version used for over 80% of the OT quotes in the NT and was the official OT of the Church from the beginning. So when the NT says that all Scripture is inspired this clearly includes Tobit. Your note was biased in the extreme. It did not mention that Hebrew fragments of the text which read almost identically to the Greek were found at Qumran. It did not mention that variant manuscripts have slightly different renderings of place names which place it in the Transjordan region rather than eastern Mesopotamia and that these are considered to be more likely the original renderings. It did not mention that scholarly opinion is divided on the age of Tobit with estimates ranging from the 9th to the 2nd century BC. It also bizarrely harps on about 'impossible' things like sparrow droppings causing blindness. This seems a lot more plausible than some of the events in Scripture that you do accept as inspired, such as the episode of goats changing fur markings from looking at sticks! It seems that your trust in this commentary is based on the fact that it confirms your preconceptions rather than the academic merit of the commentary itself.

James

 

[Mykola]

They are, then, a 19th Century attempt to restore the Church and hence are both western and recent as I wrote (not that it was difficult to ascertain from the theology). Their beliefs are extremely close to the Protestant beliefs I was brought up with, with only two exceptions. On the matter of not using musical instruments in worship and baptism by immersion, they are closer to us than to most Protestants I know of.

My comments was necessary not to leave a possibility to regard the Church of Christ an 19th attempt. James, what you're persist in is not edifying at all.

Personally, I would note the irony of someone who elevates the Bible to such a level that they can confuse the word of God with the Word of God

Whoever confused those two?
Do you think there any sane person who doesn't tell Jesus Christ from the Bible?

accusing Orthodox Christians of idolatry

Who accused you, James? Stop telling lies and slandering, please, pray.

(from my perspective, the attitude of this Campbelite movement you described makes an idol of the Scriptures whilst, curiously, not accepting the whole Scripture as followed by the early Church).

Sheer lie.
James, you should try to somehow support such wild statements.
1) Christians make idol of the Bible. Where d'you get the idea?

I can understand your emotions and your purely emotional desire to invent something to hurt me, but it is not what Christians are expected to do, and, after all, haven't I told you that nothing you say can possibly phaze me?

2) Christians not accepting the whole Scripture. No comments.

James, your sinful efforts are and will be in vain.

Perhaps it is time to change your ways, isn't it?

Most of what you have been saying has, from my point of view, been duplicitous.

Reading disability, James? I'm serious. Apprehension disability?

I do not intend to insult you, but are you okay, really? I mean, mentally.

I have to raise this issue again... I must be sure that you're comprehension skills are not distorted by preconceptions beyond my reach, and, more than that, I must be sure that you have enough respect to me to read my post carefully.

Now I can see, quite regretfully, that some of or all those conditions are not obviously met.

In addition, that which has not been such you are clinging to so stubbornly as to make our discussion absolutely useless. You will not even budge when your 'facts' are called into question. The one thing I will address is your attitude to Tobit.

James, apply these words to yourself
See, I don't jump to believe anything someone puts in my ears. Christians do not do this normally. I cannot cling to anything but the sound doctrine of the Bible, God-inspired word of God, but! But if something, including (I'm very sorry, James - jokes aside!) your dearly held preconceptions and traditions handed to you by someone - contradict the sound doctrine of the Bible, I'd not agree on that.

For you not to believe what you're told by your priest is "to stubbornly cling to preconceptions"? Sorry for you, James.

The whole Septuagint was translated by the 1st century BC, by Jews, and used as the predominant form of the Scriptures in the diaspora.

Thank you very much for the information. I used to believe that Septuagint was translated by Dan Brown just this January

Sorry, I understand your preconceived of my total ignorance in Orthodoxy... but, James, LXX has nothing to do with Orthodoxy...

It included Tobit and the rest of the Deuterocanon.

So what?

The Septuagint is the version used for over 80% of the OT quotes in the NT and was the official OT of the Church from the beginning. So when the NT says that all Scripture is inspired this clearly includes Tobit.

How's that?

Your note was biased in the extreme.

Come on, James, if I weren't myself - any other person would be tired to death by your statements, where you sound as a Prosecutor General.

I can give you a link to the article I've quoted, and you'd be able to present your commentaries to the author.

-

James, does it just seem to me that you miss out some of my questions?
I'm still naively waiting for you to give scriptural example of a prayer to anybody except God. Will I ever get some answer to this at least?

 

[James the Persian]

Mykola,

I'm afraid that I am done with this discussion. You accuse me of acting in an un-Christian manner, and libeling you when I have done no such thing, and then go on to question my sanity. Other than the fact that you clearly believe that anyone sane would obviously agree with your novel doctrine you have absolutely no basis for this and that actually is libellous, not to mention distinctly un-Christian. My comments, on the other hand, about the idolatry inherent in such a sola scripturalist position are not personal to you and hence are in no way libelling you, despite the fact that it clearly makes you uncomfortable. You seem to me to be duplicitous (in not wanting to admit to the origins of your church), hypocritical (in your 'I don't meant to insult, but...' comments when insult is your clear aim) so rigid in your thinking as to be unable to suppose, even for a moment, that your claim of 'facts' to prove your continuity from the early Church might actually prove baseless and decidedly 'holier than thou' in attitude. I would remind you of what Christ said about planks and motes when you start bandying accusations of others behaving in a way inconsonant with their faith. Please, continue to cling to your heterodox doctrines, historical fantasies and prejudiced misconceptions of the practices of the Orthodox Church. I have no desire to further correspond with you as all attempts to correct your misconceptions are summarily rebuffed (and please note that I never claimed any knowledge of your church in the way that you did of mine, despite your clear ignorance). I will heed the words of Scripture and cease throwing pearls before swine.

James

 

[Mykola]

I'm afraid that I am done with this discussion.

You'd better to be afraid of things other than stopping an internet discussion... I hope you would.

You accuse me of acting in an un-Christian manner, and libeling you when I have done no such thing, and then go on to question my sanity.

Accuse? I accused you?
Doesn't your heart accuse you, James?
Have I to accuse you to show you that you are not in line with the teaching of Christ?

Other than the fact that you clearly believe that anyone sane would obviously agree with your novel doctrine you have absolutely no basis for this and that actually is libellous, not to mention distinctly un-Christian. My comments, on the other hand, about the idolatry inherent in such a sola scripturalist position are not personal to you and hence are in no way libelling you, despite the fact that it clearly makes you uncomfortable.

I'm not an egoiste. The Church of Christ is the Body of Christ, and I'm but a member, so attack against the Church is attack against me too.

You seem to me to be duplicitous (in not wanting to admit to the origins of your church),

???

Should I have admitted anything just because you want me to?

How in the world my comments can be regarded as duplicious except you're pursuing a goal to insult me, James?

hypocritical (in your 'I don't meant to insult, but...' comments when insult is your clear aim)

Mind-reading again, James? It would not lead you anywhere...

so rigid in your thinking as to be unable to suppose, even for a moment, that your claim of 'facts' to prove your continuity from the early Church might actually prove baseless and decidedly 'holier than thou' in attitude.

Lie again.
"Holier than thou" attitude cannot be found in my words, unless you read it into them.
I'd encourage anyone to read your posts, though, and to evaluate whether there is such an attitude in yours. Personally me, I don't care for whether you have this attitude or not.

I would remind you of what Christ said about planks and motes when you start bandying accusations of others behaving in a way inconsonant with their faith.

Thank you for reminding.

Please, continue to cling to your heterodox doctrines, historical fantasies and prejudiced misconceptions of the practices of the Orthodox Church.

Rather odd...
To call the teaching of Christ "heterodox doctrines"...
James, I believe you are sane, but so much the worse for you...

I have no desire to further correspond with you as all attempts to correct your misconceptions are summarily rebuffed (and please note that I never claimed any knowledge of your church in the way that you did of mine, despite your clear ignorance).

Okay. That will a good lesson for me.

I will heed the words of Scripture and cease throwing pearls before swine.

Fine

I hope I'll find an Orthodox more informed than you to enlighten me on some aspects of your faith.

God bless you, James!

(If you want to regard this as hypocrisy again, you're the boss... But, as I've already said, your alleged ability to know what on person's mind would lead you nowhere).

-

I will try to continue "...In meekness instructing those that oppose themselves; if God peradventure will give them repentance to the acknowledging of the truth;" (2 Ti 2:25)

 

[James the Persian]

I hope I'll find an Orthodox more informed than you to enlighten me on some aspects of your faith.

This is a joke right? You haven't once asked me to enlighten you about anything to do with our faith. All you've done is told me that it's wrong. You don't even accept it when I try to correct your misinterpretations of our beliefs. If you want to ask me anything then go ahead and I'll answer you but I will not continue to debate with you in the way that I have tried up to now because it goes nowhere and you take offence at innocent comments and start insulting me baselessly as though this is the way to 'win'.

I will not post again in this thread (at least not in response to your posts). If you have questions about Orthodoxy you can post them in the Orthodox forum.

James